Funding remains uncertain for Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to shift inmates from state prisons to county jails to meet a Supreme Court-ordered population reduction.

Brown’s administration on Tuesday filed a proposal with the court that outlines its plans to meet the order to have 33,000 fewer inmates in three years. The reduction hinges on a measure that shifts housing responsibility for low-level inmates to county jails.

But questions abound on whether the Legislature will sign off on tax extensions to pay for shifting thousands of convicts from state prisons to local jails, whether voters will approve the taxes, whether the state can meet the deadlines set by the court and how the shift will play out at local jails around the state.

“Counties have neither jails or the officers to meet the flood of convicted felons,” said state Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster. “This is part of the (Brown) administration’s political drill to make a case for tax increases, which are not needed. If the administration’s realignment plan saves money, then why do we need a new revenue stream to pay for it?”

The Supreme Court decided last month that less-crowded conditions in the California prison system would improve unconstitutionally poor medical care for inmates.

California’s 33 prisons, including California Institution for Men and California Institution for Women, both in Chino, are at 180 percent of their designed capacity.

While lawmakers debate the tax-extension plan, county jails are planning for a huge influx of inmates without a guaranteed funding source.

“Funding is up in the air, and it makes it very hard to plan anything other than very gross generalities, when there is not a funding plan in place,” said Lance Clark, the deputy chief of detentions and corrections for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.

“Speaking to all of my counterparts throughout the state, everybody has developed a good general plan on how to proceed, but the problem is that the devil is in the details and you don’t know what’s feasible and what isn’t because the funding is up in the air.”

San Bernardino County houses 5,500 inmates, with a capacity for 6,100.

Clark said realignment could bring up to 8,500 more inmates to the county.

“Without a reliable funding stream to finance A.B. 109, it’s going to be very hard to manage these inmates adequately,” Clark said. “I think most counties are in the same boat.”

Matthew Cate, Brown’s corrections secretary, reiterated the administration’s desire for the tax extensions and also called for lawmakers to extend out-of-state inmate-housing contracts to help with crowding.

“We are asking the Legislature to look at the issue to take the current tax structure and extend that,” Cate said.

The Supreme Court had indicated that it might consider a request for a delay in its order, which includes benchmarks in reducing overcrowding along the way, but Cate said it was too soon for that.

Associations representing California counties and the state’s police chiefs voiced continued support for Brown’s plan, assuming the necessary funding is made available.

“The governor’s plan for realignment can work … if it’s funded,” said Dave Maggard, the president of the California Police Chiefs’ Association.

But Michael Antonovich, the Los Angeles County supervisor who represents Claremont, called Brown’s prison plan “a formula for increased disruption and violence.”

“It is time for the state to economically and securely house state felons rather than shift the burden to local governments.”

Neil Nisperos has been a reporter covering everything from business to education, courts, politics, city government, features, arts and entertainment since 1999. On social media, he has a combined following of about 25,300 people over various apps and platforms. He's passionate about the cinema, science, philosophy, poetry, art, photography, culture, literature and history. He feels fortunate to be in the profession that keeps power in check, memorializes people's stories for posterity and helps people with useful information.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.